Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Uttranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 581 of 2005 affirming the judgment and order dated 4.6.2005 passed by the District Judge, Nainital allowing an appeal from a judgment and order dated 22.11.2004 whereby and whereunder an application for release filed by the respondent on the ground of his bona fide requirement was dismissed.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 are the joint owners of a shop situated in H..No. 110 Durga Cottage Annexy Safak Suffock Hall Compound, Tallital, Nainital.

Khyali Ram, the husband of the appellant, was a tenant therein. He died leaving behind the appellant (his wife) and two daughters Smt. Hema Tiwari and Smt. Deepa Joshi. They are married. They have no concern with the shop in question.

Respondent No. 3 was in military service. He retired from army. He was living at Nainital with his wife and children. He draws a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) by way of pension. He, therefore, wanted to start his business in the said shop.

An application for release of the shop was filed before the prescribed authority being Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in terms of Section 21(1)

(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The said application was dismissed, inter alia, on the premise that applicants on a shop other than the shop in question holding:

"However, as regards need of N.A. No. 1 for the said shop, she has no other means of her livelihood except the shop in question and it is also clear that the N.A. No.1 is an old lady of 50-50 years of age because of which she was unable to carry business elsewhere. In such a case, therefore, in relation to the applicants N.A. No.1 has intense and bonafide need of the shop in question and in case the shop in question is released in favour of the applicants undoubtedly the N.A. No.1 having no means of livelihood would face too much hardship, when applicant No. 2 is a retired man and is living on pension and he is still young and he has a shop adjoining the shop in question and he can carry his business elsewhere. In such a case therefore, in relation to applicants the N.A. No.1 has intense and genuine need of the shop in question and the relative hardship is very much in favour of the non applicants No. 1 and against the applicants."

Bona fide requirement of the shop premises has been found in favour of respondent No.3 - Sunil Kumar. It now almost stands admitted that Shri Anil Kumar resides and runs a business at Almora. It is also beyond any doubt that Shri Sunil Kumar resides at Nainital. The fact that he is a retired person is not in dispute. He receives a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by way of pension has also not been disputed. The Appellate Authority has found existence of bona fide requirement on the part of the said Shri Sunil Kumar as indicated hereinbefore. The contention of the appellant No.1 is that she is a 76 years old lady and that she has to run the said business as of necessity. The core question is whether the Appellate Authority was wholly wrong in arriving at the said finding so as to warrant interference by the Writ Court.